Devoted to terrorism research, the political fringe, sports, parapolitics, and a little bit of griping.

January 28, 2012

It's time I put the text of my speech to the South London Anti-Fascist Group's AGM online.

The talk nearly did not happen. Much to my surprise, Hope Not Hate objected to me speaking, describing my presence as 'intolerable'. Hope Not Hate's predecessor organisation, Searchlight, long enjoyed a monopoly over media coverage of the far-right - it is worrying if Hope Not Hate believe they have a similar monoply over analysis of fascism, or even of opposition to it?

Anyway, after the AGM's business those present had a talk by Hackney Unites on their work in east London, and performances by Dean Atta and the Ruby Kid. That gave me the most difficult slot of all - the last one. Here's what I said:

Talk To South London Anti-Fascists

I am slightly embarrassed at being described as an activist. I'm as active as anyone with 3 part time jobs, twin sons and a PhD to finish.

I was very active for best part of two decades, a member of Class War for 16 years, I was involved with Anti-Fascist Action on an occasional basis (those who remember Red Action will know Anarchists were always kept in reserve for when the numbers were short, we were the auxillary force) and a founder member of No Platform and Antifa.

If I have theme this evening it is that things are very different today to 1992 or 1993 – but in some ways they can still be rather similar.

In 1993 anti-fascists had to contend with a large, fluid group of disparate young men, ostensibly protesting about terrorism. Their numbers certainly contained organised fascists, loyalists and ex-soldiers, but also from football firms, people with little or no political background, and people looking for a scrap. Those anti-IRA demonstrations – the cries of No Surrender – were the precursors of the EDL demonstrations of today.

Those demonstrations passed. Indeed they were a distraction from doing what was necessary – reaching a mature peace in Ireland. And the EDL are a similar distraction

The first is that they will stimulate racist attacks - either on lone Muslims on the fringes of demonstrations, or as we have seen in Luton in an attack on a mosque.

That EDL actions will stimulate racist attacks by Muslims on whites. At the counter-demo to the EDL in Birmingham at least one white passer by was beaten up, with footage of the incident displayed across the papers.

With hindsight, there are other dangers we could perhaps add, although I have to say the idea of the EDL as an electoral force conjoined with the British Freedom Party is one that at this stage I don’t fear. Social movements tend to lose something, some of their sparkle when they try and become political parties.

3. The third danger I saw, which is by far the biggest, is that the EDL retard debate about Islam, and more importantly Islamism, in the UK. There is something different potentially about the EDL to the anti-IRA – read anti-Irish - demonstrations of the 1990s.

Lets consider where the EDL emerges – in Luton – following the Al-Mujihiroun demonstration against the Royal Anglian Regiment. Historically Luton is a town with comparatively good race relations. It has good relations between white and black, and good relations between Irish and British. It has very poor relations between Muslim and non-Muslim. Those problems long predate the EDL.

In 2009 I argued the presence of the EDL runs the risk of dividing debate into racists on one side, and professional anti-racists and Muslim representative organisations on the other, with little or no space for anyone else to operate in. Melanie Phillips on one side and the Muslim Council of Britain on the other. And that divide excludes the vast majority of people in this community, and indeed the UK.

There is a problem, for people on the left, in considering issues in those terms. Look at the hysterical reactions from some on the left when, I think it was Nick Lowles, made the comment that Al-Mujihiroun and the EDL were two sides of the same coin. It was hardly a bizarre comparison to make.

There are problems, and indeed real concerns with some of the brands of Islam we now see in the UK. In Tower Hamlets, the most important political institution is not the Labour Party, trades unions or a particular community group - it is East London Mosque. How we articulate and discuss these issues is an even bigger challenge than dealing with the EDL. They are another distraction from where we want to go, from where we want society to be.

I want to say a few things about multi-culturalism. It is something I suspect everyone in this room is comfortable with. As an Englishman of Irish descent with an African wife, I know I am. A London where we get on with our neighbours and our workmates precisely because they are our neighbours and colleagues. That gives us shared interests and things in common. A multi-culturalism where we see people as people, not as representatives of particular ethnic or religious groups, to be spoken to and interacted with on those terms.

I don’t usually see the need to articulate most of the problems of London in racial terms. That is not to say racism does not exist – it does. But there are two types of multi-culturalism. Kenan Malik’s attack on a top down multi-culturalism, where identities are imposed by authorities – read his book From Fatwa to Jihad – is I think essential reading. He sets out how in Birmingham identities were imposed, by the local authority, and funding and power allocated on that basis. And within two decades, you have blacks and Muslims fighting each other in the streets. In the 1980s they had been fighting alongside one another against the police.

Onto the contemporary far-right. As in the early 1990s, the main far right party is underachieving. The spivvy nature of Griffin’s BNP has been understood by his own supporters, taking a lot of his base away. Griffin’s sole priority is probably to get re-elected as an MEP – those who have served two terms in the European Parliament get a very significant pension. It is hard, but not impossible to see him getting the BNP back to where it was.

These are still challenging times though for anti-fascists. I would recommend to you some of the work Matthew Goodwin of Nottingham University has done on far-right voting patterns and opinion poll data across Europe. In most countries the populist (read fascist) party has a rising vote – Norway and the UK being the most noticeable exceptions. It is not hard to see why the vote is collapsing in Norway – in Anders Breivik, they have seen fascism in action. In France and Austria the majority of white working class voters indicated they would vote for the ‘populist’ party.

I am not sure anything about a trend ensures its continuation. To me, a whole series of dangers exist, but one of the most dangerous is to play into the hands of fascists. If there is such a thing as ‘the black community’ or the ‘Vietnamese community’ or the ‘Muslim community’, with fixed leaders, structures and needs, can we really wet our pants in shock and distress when someone says “I represent the white community vote for me”?

Yes we need multi-culturalism. It is what I live. But we need a bottom up multi-culturalism, not a top down government approach that plays into the hands of our enemies.

No Platform, which I tried to uphold for two decades, is harder than ever to implement. Firstly because of police repression – consider the six Antifa members jailed last year, the amount of CCTV, the limitless expenses these specialist police units seem to have. Secondly look at the rise of social media and the Internet – the BNP could be prevented from leafleting, but that same leaflet placed online and seen by hundreds of people within minutes. Which makes no platform more of an occasional tactic than part of a sustainable, permanent programme.

We have to beat the fascists in argument. And we can. Our ideas are better than theirs.

What did annoy me was this little quote from Ahdaf Soueif's interview, where she states:

"The fact that people could act with such unity; that a civilian population could, unarmed and non-violent, force the removal of the head of a corrupt and brutal regime was a general cause for optimism."

The good news is that the anti-Mubarak forces won, at least in terms of the battles of Tahrir Square. As the dust settles, it seems probable that they won the battle but lost the war. But that is no need to re-write history. I do hope Ahdaf Soueif's book is better than the interview suggests............

January 24, 2012

The East London Advertiser is now re-named the Docklands and East London Advertiser. It is the dominant local newspaper in Tower Hamlets, but also sells well in Hackney and Newham.

Many years ago George Orwell outlined how the poor pay more for goods than the rich. The wealthier you are, the easier it is to buy in bulk, and therefore to buy more cheaply. Two loafs of bread are often cheaper, in real terms, than one. A modern variant of this is where the wealthy pay less for the same item than others - for example the student discounts given at take aways and clothes shops to usually middle class students living in many inner city areas.

Another example exists in east London. Buy the Docklands and East London Advertiser in Hackney, Newham or Tower Hamlets at your local newsagent, and you will be charged 60 pence. Go to Canary Wharf, and amble down any of the shopping malls - and the East London Advertiser is free.

Clearly those working in Canary Wharf are considered more valuable customers than those living in the heart of east London?

January 23, 2012

An appeal is now going out for session organisers for a second conference, to be held later this year - again at Loughborough. It is below - those who want to put a suggestion forward should so by the end of January.

We live in interesting times. The Arab Spring, Occupy X and anti-austerity protests are only the latest and most visible examples in a long tradition of grassroots social movements in which ordinary people create democratic alternatives to hierarchy and inequality. Here and everywhere, people are getting together and making connections between their own everyday experiences and wider patterns of relationships and power, official and unofficial. They (or we) are making connections with each other, personal and political. New patterns evolve as people experiment with different ways of organising, of relating, of connecting, of thinking. Scholars, artists and activists observe, theorise and participate in various ways, helping to make connections, both in social movements and in the movements of everyday life. Feminists, in particular, have foregrounded intersectional approaches to power, privilege and oppression. Race, class and gender; sexuality, ecology and (dis)ability; age, species and faith -- each of these and more interconnect in numerous ways, both subtle and overt.

The Anarchist Studies Network (http://anarchist-studies-network.org.uk) is hosting a conference to acknowledge, celebrate and deepen these diverse efforts to understand and transform our world, our lives. We want this conference itself to be a space for making connections, both intellectual and personal. It will include a blend of more or less traditional panels, participatory discussions and experiential workshops, extended breaks and social events. This first call is an invitation to propose thematic streams, workshops or panel topics by those who are willing to take a role in organising them. Further calls will invite papers, participation, performance. We're particularly keen to make connections across borders of identities, movements, disciplines and practices. We invite contributions from students, academics and unaffiliated researchers, activists and artists, health practitioners and care workers, trade unionists, community organisers and those without labels. Above all, we would like to nurture a convivial atmosphere in which to make connections with others, explore areas of both overlap and difference, create or simply meet, to learn and to share.

Our intention is for this to be a scholarly conference with a difference. Scholar means both student and teacher. By bringing together a diverse group of participants, who share in common a desire to learn and a commitment to acknowledging and creating alternatives to rigid hierarchies and exploitative relationships, we hope that each of us will have something to offer others and much to learn. The process of organising the conference is decentralised, with the conference initiators welcoming proposals from a diverse range of session organisers covering a wide variety of engaged and engaging topics. We also invite session organisers to consider playful, participatory and/or experimental panel and workshop formats. This might range from a traditional three paper panel followed by a discussion using alternative facilitation techniques (e.g., open space technology, fishbowl, or sitting in a circle with a facilitator) to more interactive workshop-style discussion or experiential sessions. Our intention is not to be transgressive for the sake of it, but to encourage a variety of methods in order to facilitate making connections.

If you're interested in organising a stream or a session but are new to the role, feel free to contact us for advice about what this is likely to involve (you can also see how the 1st Anarchist Studies Network Conference in September 2008 was organised by linking to the following web page, where thematic streams and their organisers are indicated in bold print: http://www.anarchist-studies-network.org.uk/documents/Final%20Schedule.pdf). Likewise, if you'd like to do something a bit playful or different, but are not sure how or just need a little advice, please get in touch. Finally, if you are keen to be involved in a session, but not wanting to take on the responsibility of organising one, let us know and we'll see if we can match you up.

January 17, 2012

Many years ago Class War's Ken Keating commented on redevelopment in Salford, and argued that it would in practice not bring jobs for local people - the companies that came "would bring their own people with them".

January 15, 2012

South London Anti-Fascists have invited me to speak at their AGM in Clapham on Wednesday 25th January at 7pm.

You can find more details here. These are challenging times for the far-right in Britain, and as such challenging times for anti-fascists. The fascists traditional under achievement, arrested by Nick Griffin, has returned, and the BNP now face the perfect storm of declining membership, financial scandals and emerging rivals on the right. The English Defence League maintain a street presence and a degree of cultural resonance, but have to juggle vastly differing internal currents. All this to a backdrop that should provide fertile ground to fascists - economic decline, a weak coalition government, the European Union discredited like never before and reinvigorated debates, especially in London, about race, racism and multi-culturalism.

January 14, 2012

The current issue of the Jewish Telegraph has an article about the German website nazi-leaks.net which it says has published details from 11 websites from far-right groups. Nazi-Leaks are described as Anarchists and supporters of Julian Assange.

There leaks apparently include details from Blood and Honour here in the UK. All very interesting, but for reasons which are not explained we are told Nazi-Leaks is only vieweable in Germany. Has this information been made available anywhere else? If not, as this blog has at least one German based visitor could I ask he make himself useful for once by casting an eye across it?

January 09, 2012

On Saturday morning a charming new year missive from Hackney Homes landed on my doormat.

Dated 27 December 2011 (letters from them always take a long time to arrive, I think they must incubate on Mare Street) it announces an average rent increase from April of 7.08%. I am sure there are some Hackney residents who will recieve a 7% pay increase this year, but they will all live in new builds in the borough, not social housing. Indeed for the security work I do, basic rates of pay have remained the same since 2008.

Hackney Council loves to blame everyone but itself for large rent increases, telling us rent needs to change 'to achieve the government formula' by 2015/6. Just to illustrate this is nonsense, consider the increase in service costs Hackney has also implemented - an eye watering 6.1% for block cleaning, estate cleaning, communal lighting and concierge services. There are not many certainities in life, but one is that Hackney's concierges will not be getting a 6% pay increase - the Council is simply milking its residents again.

All of this is of course accompanied by a school dinners approach to services - you get what you are given. Under the Decent Homes programme I got a new front door. I did not ask for a new front door, I did not need a new front door, and there was nothing wrong with my old front door - but it was changed anyway. A government standard needs to be met, and someone I have never met decried that was one of the ways of doing it. If only the money spent on a front door had actually been spent on insulation in my kitchen, my flat might be warmer, and fuel bills lower. Still, why ask tenants what they need doing? We only pay the rent!

There are not many certainities in life - but one is that 2012 will see a lot more of this type of nonsense.

January 05, 2012

Easy to forget when looking at Meg Hillier, Jules Pipe, Luke Akehurst,Diane Abbott and the Labour gang in Hackney, but this is one London borough with a truly radical history.

Archiving this, on an occasional basis, is The Radical History of Hackney, a blog where the radical pamphlets, leaflets and publications of yesteryear are placed online for us all to see. Todays post is on the Angry Brigade and Stoke Newington Eight. Other offerings cover the campaign against the first Gulf War, Class War, the Hackney Community Defence Association and local squatting campaigns.

January 04, 2012

In 2011 we saw the Church of England divided about the issue of Occupy protestors on church land at St Pauls Cathedral. We have also seen the Bishop of London and Archbishop of Canterbury criticise the excesses of the City and bankers.

Let us hear no more from these hypocrites in 2012, and let us loudly denounce those gullible fools, from Occupy to Terry Eagleton, who would include sky pilots in the struggle for a better world. Lets us consider yesterday's Evening Standard, and its excellent City Spy column which talks of:

...the Church Commissioner's investment strategy of an "acceptable level of risk" to achieve "the best possible total return for the shares" they own which are worth £3.2 billion. They hold another £1.6 billion in commerical property.

As with any good capitalist institution though, the Church of England now concentrates its investment abroad (those English workers want too much money!)

In recent years they have scaled down their holdings in UK company shares and invested more in global company shares and private equity.

With assests of £4.8 billion, the Church of England could wipe out poverty in Britain at a stroke. They don't - because they don't want to. Having a rich and a poor, having 'good' works to do, is for the religious actor as natural as day and night. And as such, it is high time we realised they are not part of the solution - they are part of the problem.

January 03, 2012

Labour activists have been out across the region leafletting rail and tube stations about the terrible fare increases that have come into effect from today.

I have only two comments. Firstly did they not notice the significant increases that occured every year when Labour was in power, and particularly in London where Ken Livingstone looked to price people off the tube and onto buses?

Secondly those of us with long memories can recall Tony Blair being elected with a manifesto pledge to renationalise the railways. He did not do so. Why then, should we believe Labour commitments , such as Ken Livingstone's fares pledges, now?

January 01, 2012

How much money is ripped off from consumers every year in ordinary, legal and legitimate capitalist enterprise? Often without them even noticing.

Estimates exist of how much money is lost each year through tax avoidance (figures beloved of the left) and how much money is lost each year through benefit fraud (figures beloved of the right). I know little of how estimates of tax avoidance are reached, but do know from my time in the Employment Service that the official figures on benefit fraud are greatly prone to exaggeration. Imagine that Miss Y is caught making a fraudulent claim in the first month of the financial year. Her claim is stopped and she is prosecuted. The powers that be assume that fraud would have continued for the remainder of the financial year, and calculate the money saved by the fraud officer to be equal to 12 months fraud. This ignores the possibility of Miss Y doing any of the things that could stop her claim - dying, moving abroad, being sent to prison, or even forgetting to go and sign on. The structure encourages an inflation, not a deflation, of the sums.

The Taxpayers Alliance and Adam Smith Institute have produced some fascinating figures on just how long the average worker has to work before they have paid their years income tax to the government, and when they have paid for the cost of regulation. That such work appears to be the preserve of the political right, rather than the left, tells us all we need to know about why the last century left struggles for relevance, even at the height of this recession.

What is lacking though is an estimate of just how many days we have to work to pay for goods and services that are unfairly and unjustly levied, or that we do not even know we are paying for. The Con-Dems recent suggestion that they will act against credit card surcharges is one such example (presumeably New Labour never noticed this injustice in 13 years in office).

Last month my wife booked four tickets for us to take the boys to see Father Christmas at Westfield in Stratford. It was free, but there was a £1.50 booking fee to limit daily attendance to an agreed number. Only a week later, when printing out the email, did she notice she had also paid £16 to 'insure' our booking. This was not something we had asked for, we did not want it, but as she had failed to opt out when completing the order, we had accidentally purchased. Four minutes on the phone to an 0845 number (more revenue for the company concerned) and our insurance was cancelled - but how many people were caught out?

I have no idea how you would go about calculating such a figure, or even constructing an estimate. But it may well dwarf those hit by devious credit card charges................